PENSIONS FOR BLIND.

Grey River Argus, 19 January 1922, Page 8

PENSIONS FOR BLIND.

WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS. LABOUR PARTY’S DEMAND. WELLINGTON, Jan 14. In the House yesterday, when the Pensions Estimates were in Committee, Mr W. E. Parry moved to reduce the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions (£900) by £1 in order to indicate the urgent need of provision being made to give adequate pensions to the blind. The Chairman of Committees ruled that the motion could not be discussed, and after the Minister had said that while the Government recognised the need for pensions for the blind and also for invalidity pensions, it hadn’t, got the money, the amendment was defeated by 32 to 28. Widows and Orphans. Mr Fraser then moved to reduce the item by £1 for the purpose of indicating that the pensions of widows and orphans should be increased. The Chairman of Committees ruled that Mr Fraser could not give the reason indicated for moving his amendment. Mr Holland protested that ever since he had been a member of the House members had been allowed to move that various items be reduced to indicate that something or other ought to be done. The Chairman said that anything in the Estimates could be discussed, but nothing outside the Estimates could be discussed; and in fairness to all members ho must pull any member up as soon as he went outside the Estimates. It would be relevant to move the reduction of a vote as an indication that the policy of a department was wrong, or that an officer was not fit for his position. Such matters could be discussed on the Estimates. Dr Newman protested that the liberty of members was being slowly whittled away. Mr Holland said that no otjier course was open to them, but to challenge the Chairman’s ruling.

Ruling Challenged. The motion was carried and the Speaker was called in, when the (Chairman and Mr Fraser stated what had occurred. The Primo Minister argued that it was a question as between policy and administration. Matters of administration could be discussed on the Estimates, but matters of policy could not. There had been so much of this sort of thing—not perhaps in this, but in previous sessions— that he thought there should be a ruling on the point. Mr McCombs contended that the matter should be treated as one of administration.

Mr 11. Atmore contended that the previous vote had been taken on a matter of policy, to indicate that adequate pensions should be provided for the blind.

Mr J. A. Young pointed out that the Chairman had stated that he could take no notice of the hon. member’s indication. The vote was taken solely on the reduction of the item by £5. Mr Wilford: What for? (Laughter). Mr Holland contended that the House had voted on the principle, not on the bare reduction. The member for Auckland East (Mr C. Mackenzie), for instance, had on that account voted for the motion. Ever since he had been a member, it had been the custom of members to move the reduction of a vote as an indication that a certain policy was desired by the House. Chairman Explains. The Chairman stated that he had ruled Mr Fraser out of order on the question of irrelevancy. Matters of policy were not relevant on the Estimates. He had to be very strict, because it was very unfair that it should be open to people outside to say that a member*’ had voted against pensions for the blind, for instance, when, he as chairman, had ruled that only the reduction of the vote was in question.

Dr Newman complained that for five or six years past, the Chairman of Committees had been whittling down the liberties of Parliament in regard to the discussion of tlio x Estimates. At one time hon. members were almost allowed to go as they pleased on the Estimates, but now they were so strictly pulled up that it was becoming intolerable. Mr Speaker’s Ruling. The Speaker said that it had been repeatedly ruled that in committee the chairman alone had the right to say what was relevant or irrelevant. He could not go beyond that. It was laid down in the standing orders that on any item in the Estimates only questions that had to do with the item could bo discussed; but the issues as to what was or was not relevant was entirely at the discretion of the Chairman of Committees. He would not interfere with the Chairman’s ruling.